New submarines now Australia's biggest ever military project

[Todjaeger]

which reaches a depth and a Japanese submarine collins?

what type of weapons used to attack earth?

If I understand the first question correctly, I cannot tell you the answer, as I do not know. I also expect that those who do know the answer within a certain margin will not say (or cannot say...) At a guess, I would think a dive depth in excess of 300ft/100m/50 fathoms would be a likely requirement. BTW I think the dept exceeds this.

In answer to the second question as to what weapons would be used for land attack (if I understand the question correctly) then any of the sub-launched land attack missiles should work, assuming proper fitout of the sub for launch tubes and FC systems. The later block Harpoons and Tomahawks come to mind, but these are not the only types available. These are likely just the ones with the most practical (or actual combat) useage at present.

-Cheers

 

[Alonso Quijano]

If I understand the first question correctly, I cannot tell you the answer, as I do not know. I also expect that those who do know the answer within a certain margin will not say (or cannot say...) At a guess, I would think a dive depth in excess of 300ft/100m/50 fathoms would be a likely requirement. BTW I think the dept exceeds this.

In answer to the second question as to what weapons would be used for land attack (if I understand the question correctly) then any of the sub-launched land attack missiles should work, assuming proper fitout of the sub for launch tubes and FC systems. The later block Harpoons and Tomahawks come to mind, but these are not the only types available. These are likely just the ones with the most practical (or actual combat) useage at present.

-Cheers

wanted to know the maximum depth of a Japanese submarine that our friend gf0012 said that it is immersed to a depth (I seem to understand) like a nuclear submarine to give battle.
scorpene a submarine or an S-80 would be able to sumergise till 300m and has capabilities to combat nuclear submarines.
anyone see a map of Australia who want to understand a lot of autonomy with submarines or SSN.
but the objective of Australia is to have a defensive or offensive weapon?
wonder why that kind of attack submarines will have to ground the Australians and Japanese, that a long-range submarine possibility of an attack on earth, is clearly an offensive weapon.

PS: I am delighted that Australians also renounce nuclear.

 

[Todjaeger]

wanted to know the maximum depth of a Japanese submarine that our friend gf0012 said that it is immersed to a depth (I seem to understand) like a nuclear submarine to give battle.
scorpene a submarine or an S-80 would be able to sumergise till 300m and has capabilities to combat nuclear submarines.
anyone see a map of Australia who want to understand a lot of autonomy with submarines or SSN.
but the objective of Australia is to have a defensive or offensive weapon?
wonder why that kind of attack submarines will have to ground the Australians and Japanese, that a long-range submarine possibility of an attack on earth, is clearly an offensive weapon.

PS: I am delighted that Australians also renounce nuclear.

Having an ocean-going or long-ranged submarine is IMO really a must do both Japan and Australia. Also given the area of operations (the Pacific Ocean) to operate effectively the subs would need to be fairly sizable to include the need crew, fuel, ordnance & supplies. After all the Pacific is a big place.

Given the different missions a sub can be used for like intel gathering, interdiction of shipping, landing of special forces, etc it to my mind makes sense to try and include as many options as reasonable in a vessel. For a number of the European designs, the situation is a bit different, as some of these would expect to be operating in shallower or more confining waters that like of the Baltic or Mediterranean Seas. With this sort of operational environment, the subs would likely always be comparatively close to a friendly port and likely having more frequent deployments of shorter duration.

As for the sub being offensive or defensive... It mostly depends on the doctrine, though some designs are really only defensive in nature. An Italian design I came across circa 2000 comes to mind when I post about a design being largely defensive. IIRC the vessel has a range of ~2,000 n miles, a crew of about 6 and a displacement somewhere between 100 and 200 tons. The design, based off the specs I read, was suited for mining harbours or acting as a defensive picket for ones own harbours, as it could carry a maximum of ~6 torpedoes in tubes. Any of the larger subs could possibly carry more weaponry, thus giving the option of taking battle to ones opponent, or waiting for an opponent to come to you...

-Cheers

 

[Alonso Quijano]

you're right.

 

[moahunter]

I can't help but think that both Canada and Australia have made a mistake in acquiring non-nuclear powered submarines. While fuel cell technology and similar is improving, the capabilities don't seem to be in the same league as a nuclear powered submarine.

At least in Canada's case, the cost (aside from the lives in the accident on delivery) has been relatively low by buying the used UK subs (even with all the upgrading going on). Canada originally planned to acquire nuclear submarines, and I suspect in the future, if the Conservatives maintain power (or gain it back), one day they will.

Australia is spending an awful lot of money though on this project. I guess it is hampered by political realities that Canada is not (nuclear power is not an issue in Canada), but even so, I can't help but wonder if a lot of this money isn't going to waste. It just doesn't make sense to me to try and build something from scratch, when instead they could be working with an ally like the US or UK.

 

[StevoJH]

I can't help but think that both Canada and Australia have made a mistake in acquiring non-nuclear powered submarines. While fuel cell technology and similar is improving, the capabilities don't seem to be in the same league as a nuclear powered submarine.

At least in Canada's case, the cost (aside from the lives in the accident on delivery) has been relatively low by buying the used UK subs (even with all the upgrading going on). Canada originally planned to acquire nuclear submarines, and I suspect in the future, if the Conservatives maintain power (or gain it back), one day they will.

Australia is spending an awful lot of money though on this project. I guess it is hampered by political realities that Canada is not (nuclear power is not an issue in Canada), but even so, I can't help but wonder if a lot of this money isn't going to waste. It just doesn't make sense to me to try and build something from scratch, when instead they could be working with an ally like the US or UK.

The problem with nuclear powered submarines is that you need speciallised shoreside machinery to refit them, particularly for dealing with the reactor, that makes them a very expensive proposition.

 

[Todjaeger]

I can't help but think that both Canada and Australia have made a mistake in acquiring non-nuclear powered submarines. While fuel cell technology and similar is improving, the capabilities don't seem to be in the same league as a nuclear powered submarine.

At least in Canada's case, the cost (aside from the lives in the accident on delivery) has been relatively low by buying the used UK subs (even with all the upgrading going on). Canada originally planned to acquire nuclear submarines, and I suspect in the future, if the Conservatives maintain power (or gain it back), one day they will.

Australia is spending an awful lot of money though on this project. I guess it is hampered by political realities that Canada is not (nuclear power is not an issue in Canada), but even so, I can't help but wonder if a lot of this money isn't going to waste. It just doesn't make sense to me to try and build something from scratch, when instead they could be working with an ally like the US or UK.

AFAIK Canada is not getting much capability out of the ex-Upholders, relative to the amount spent on them. IIRC only 1 or 2 of them are ever in service at the same time, and the HMCS Chicoutimi (the one which had the fire) has not yet entered service and is likely to remain drydock until 2010+...

-Cheers

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think in hind sight the Canadians should have bought in on collins.

The upholders are a bit of a WOFTAM. Then again with hindsight we would always make the right decision and given how much bad press the collins was getting at decision and selling time Canada would never had touched it.

Nuclear subs are a whole different kettle of fish and you now enter the world of money pits. This is fine for large nuclear powers (UK, Franch, USSR, USA) but for everyone else they are massive commitments.

While ideally nuclear would fill the void, these aren't easy decisions for governments to make. However you don't absolutely need it to make a very credable deterant.. Nuclear submarines aren't a easy thing to master, ask china. Or ask Russia how on going and decom costs are.

 

[Alonso Quijano]

I can't help but think that both Canada and Australia have made a mistake in acquiring non-nuclear powered submarines. While fuel cell technology and similar is improving, the capabilities don't seem to be in the same league as a nuclear powered submarine.

At least in Canada's case, the cost (aside from the lives in the accident on delivery) has been relatively low by buying the used UK subs (even with all the upgrading going on). Canada originally planned to acquire nuclear submarines, and I suspect in the future, if the Conservatives maintain power (or gain it back), one day they will.

Australia is spending an awful lot of money though on this project. I guess it is hampered by political realities that Canada is not (nuclear power is not an issue in Canada), but even so, I can't help but wonder if a lot of this money isn't going to waste. It just doesn't make sense to me to try and build something from scratch, when instead they could be working with an ally like the US or UK.

not everyone likes the position of having a nuclear threat in each port of your country, many opt for a better world.
nuclear submarines is true that they have more autonomy, and more rapid sea are able to carry weapons, it really is an offensive weapon.
But good SSK fleet can be better defensive weapon since they can be a great hunter, are much more secretive that the SSN, the SSN are vulnerable to bad noise.
once in the Strait of Gibraltar a Russian nuclear submarine, which shut down the engine tube and be carried away by strong currents of the Strait to enter without being seen in the Mediterranean.
I think a SSN if you have only served to protect settlements or are a great global power like the U.S. or Russia, which in case of war have to deploy their SSN in a strategic way for a war with nuclear missiles.
to defend your country with modern SSK is vastante and renounced nuclear contamination.
un saludo!

 

[Ananda]

Nuclear subs are a whole different kettle of fish and you now enter the world of money pits. This is fine for large nuclear powers (UK, Franch, USSR, USA) but for everyone else they are massive commitments.

While ideally nuclear would fill the void, these aren't easy decisions for governments to make. However you don't absolutely need it to make a very credable deterant. Nuclear submarines aren't a easy thing to master, ask china. Or ask Russia how on going and decom costs are.

True you don't need nuclear subs to do the job. However what the job that you really want ? Early on this thread I've ask what the Aussies really want with their Subs. Many answer coming showing aussies need subs to partrol the long coast of australia, but however it's also wants to go Indies and pacific.

Off course nuke's subs will be ecpensive to build, procured and maintains, it's going to be a money pit, well you bet it'is..If you only want to play patroling the aussies coast or playing hide and seek with our 209's, malay's new scorpene, running around in SEA sea lanes or occasionaly say hello to Indian & Chinese subs in bay of benggal and south china sea..than collins will be sufficients
However if you want to stalked indian coasts, take a peek to chinese bases or even try to see what's going on in Vladivostock..I think it's asked rather too much for collins.

Tha'ts why I asked with that kind of budgets being prepared..what really aussies wants..?? New and more sophisticated subs will come around in the regional waters..We're in the process of acquairing Kilo's..or 214..or the worst updated 209's..Malay's already get their scorpones..Sing will going to get new swede's dessign...Indian will get scorpenes in replacing their 209 and off course Nukes (and don't forget their fleets of Kilo's)...China continues wants to play catching up with US and Russia in the subs fleet...
So what aussies wants..??
Again collins will be well equiped to deal with new subs coming around in regional waters...however if the aimed to have definite regional superiority..If you really trying to match India and China..is it SSk really what you're looking for..??
Afterall..small SSN like the Brazil plan with enlarging Scorpenes hull..still within reach of your Aust$ 25 bio's budgets..and will have potential on any SSK's design in place or in the near future designs...
Off course unless magically the AIP can do 80%-90% of what the nuke's can do